Katko v. Briney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), was a famous tort case decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa, in which a homeowner (Edward Briney) was held liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an abandoned house on the homeowner's property.

Case Brief: Briney mounted a spring loaded shotgun in his unoccupied house, the shotgun severely injured Katko’s leg when he tried to break into the house. Katko sued.

Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse in Iowa, the property was boarded up, had NO TRESPASS signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into unoccupied farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruders legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five weeks later, Katko and a companion broke into the farmhouse with the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the house, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shotgun fired into Katko’s leg at point blank range. The gunshot wounds sustained by Katko were sufficiently severe for him to require hospitalization. Katko sued Briney after his release from hospital.

Reasoning: The court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in attacking Katko with a shotgun if Briney had been in the house at the time and had feared that his life was in danger.

Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

The case appears in virtually every torts textbook, and has even been the subject of a collection of poems written by law students. It stands for the proposition that, though a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers, he may not set deadly traps against them.

The notable quotation from the decision is:

"the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property"

[edit] Aftermath

The case had several subsequent results. The Brineys sold 80 of their 120 acres to pay the judgment while proceeding with an appeal. Three of Briney's neighbors bought the property at auction, paying $1 more than the minimum bid of $10,000. After the appeal was denied, they made a leaseback arrangement with Briney, but eventually one sold his share to his son for a profit. Briney and Katko then joined in a lawsuit against the neighbor to create a constructive trust on the profit, but the case was settled before trial in an amount sufficient to close out the judgment against Briney.^[1]

As Katko's injury was misreported by the United Press International wire service as having taken place in the Briney residence, several states introduced what were called "Briney Bills" for self-defense, which was not at issue in the case. The Nebraska Legislature act, stating that no person ... shall be placed in ... jeopardy ... for protecting, by any means necessary, himself, his family, or his real estate property...., was overturned due to improper delegation of sentencing authority in State v. Goodseal (1971).^[1]

[edit] Notes

[edit] Sources

• Katko v. Briney case brief
• Andrew J. McClurg,[1]Poetry in Commotion: Katko v. Briney and the Bards of First-Year Torts, 74 Oregon Law Review 823-48 (1995).